On Pitching

The pitch came from Amanda Miller of Nike Communications, pushing the Phil & Ted’s line of products – inline stroller and playpen / crib combo to be more specific.

It was loaded with pop culture references: Brangelina, J.Lo, Marc Anthony, Brook Shields, Gwyneth Paltrow, etc.

It even referred to children as fashion accessories.

Let’s cut to the chase – it wasn’t a very well thought-out pitch. More importantly, let’s look at why:

1. This PR pitch wasn’t well-targeted.

Why on earth would you send something like this to the Times? Would it work for a pop culture mag? Possibly. But this isn’t a pop culture mag. I’d like to think most of us know enough to target pitches like this differently to different audiences. In the future, I hope Amanda joins those ranks.

2. This PR pitch was hypocritical.

On one hand, Amanda notes “with the widespread use of fertility drugs and an increase in women having children later in life (average age is now 31), twins — and children born in quick succession — are born in greater quantity now more than ever.”

So we’re talking about an aging group of new parents. Then why does the pitch sound like it’s targeting a parent reader base in their teens to early twenties? I understand the concept of targeting parents who care about fashion. This was just too much though. Again, time to improve the targeting.

3. This PR pitch was drawn out.

With a PR pitch, you need to get to the point. And get there quickly.

The issue of referring to children as fashion accessories is a bit unnerving. Then again, it’s sadly true in a lot of cases. Don’t act like you’ve never seen it.

On the other hand, is it smart for a company to tie itself to that group? Would you want your, or your client’s, company associated with the seriously superficial when the products could otherwise appeal to a much larger base? That doesn’t seem smart in this case, especially given the likely readers of the journalist being targeted.

Amanda’s mistakes all come down to the same thing – the pitch was extremely poorly targeted. The good news is that’s easy to fix moving forward.

On Bitching

Am I going to whine about Nocera for exposing this bad pitch on his blog? Nah.

Someone wasted his time. He happens to have a public outlet to express his disdain. That’s life.

Could, or should, he have handled it a bit differently? I think so. It’s one thing to spend your time complaining publicly about a pitch you don’t like. But wouldn’t it be more productive to give some useful feedback?

If you want someone to improve, tell them how. They may or may not listen — if they don’t, by all means, rip them a new one if you think the pitch really needs to be exposed to protect you or someone else from similar stupidity.

On Fixing This Mess

On a more general note, when it comes to folks complaining about pitches, I’d really like them to come out and say how they were contacted. And it would be nice to hear how that PR person came across them, if they know (and it wouldn’t hurt for them to ask if they feel they’re being improperly targeted).

Why does this matter?

It would help to know if they’re actively soliciting pitches, and what they’re saying they do (or don’t) want. It would also help to see what kind of bio exists, if any, and if that would explain why they’re getting certain types of pitches.

Is their own writing style where the PR person found them similar in any way to that of the pitch? If so, then it may not be as poorly targeted as originally thought.

I’m not saying Nocera specifically solicits, or makes it appear like he solicits, these kinds of pitches. But journalists aren’t always completely innocent when it comes to bad pitches they receive. Sometimes they forget that they’ve covered certain things in the past for example — and that makes it reasonable for PR folks to think they might be interested in covering something similar in the future. At other times, they place blame for bad pitches in the wrong places.

When Journalists Contribute to Their Own Problem

A good example would be when Gina Trapani not long ago was bashing PR folks for “ignoring” her requests on her website not to send pitches to a specific email address. What she neglected to point out (or figure out) was that PR folks weren’t finding that address on her website. They were in fact finding it in a media database – a problem she could have solved much earlier by bothering to ask.

Journalists can get to the root of a lot of these problems by simply asking where they were found. I’m not saying they should waste time doing this constantly, but it would cut down on a lot of the bickering back and forth when there are more legitimate reasons for targeting someone, even if the journalist personally thinks something was poorly targeted to them.

By all means, I’m not taking blame away from the PR crowd. We have plenty of clueless folks masquerading as PR professionals without understanding what that really means (which is a LOT more than pitching).

I sometimes wonder what happened to the relations side of things (equally important from the journalist perspective). I suppose as long as Amanda’s clients aren’t looking for coverage from Joe, and as long as Joe doesn’t later need access to Amanda’s clients, there’s no major harm done here.

It’s when either side doesn’t have enough forethought to think about what they may be doing to future relationships that we really have a problem.

The post Bad Pitching and Bitching: Should Journalists Expose a Bad PR Pitch? appeared first on NakedPR.

PRs are still going to pitch their stories. We’re like dogs… if our actions are validated, we’re not going to change them. If we pitch to blogs like yours, and most of the feedback is positive (or the results are positive compared to the time and energy put in at least), we’re not going to change much overall.

Bloggers are still going to bitch and rant publicly if they don’t like what PRs are doing or saying. They’re still adapting to the growing pains of the blogosphere – being treated like journalists in a publishing industry they’ve chosen to become involved with (and that trend is probably going to continue to grow).

I can understand both sides. I play on both teams every day. But the back and forth attacks do nothing but make the people involved look ridiculous (and sometimes pretty hypocritical).

So rather than trying to place blame on one side, let’s instead accept that both sides have their share of f*ck-ups, and let’s see what an ideal world would look like if bloggers and PRs could learn to play nice:

PR Firms / Professionals

• WOULD NOT ever send irrelevant news releases or pitches to bloggers. At least try to be relevant. If you’re not sure if your news is relevant, ask them. If the blogger hops around from topic to topic, forget about them (you should be targeting people with a true niche audience related to your news – a topic-hopper won’t give you that as much as a real niche site / blog will).
• WOULD thoroughly read a blog to get a better feel for what the blogger’s interests are. Or more realistically, you would at least acknowledge that the search function is your friend – look for related products, news, etc. being discussed there. Do they even cover news at all? You should be able to tell that much from a simple search or looking at the blog’s categories or tags.
• WOULD interact with the blogger via blog comments to “test the waters” before considering sending them a pitch.
• WOULD NOT mass-send any pitches for any reason to an email list. It goes without saying that any email list you have should be built on your own, and not paid for. If you’re buying niche email lists, you’re a moron.
• WOULD always tailor pitches to the blogger individually (don’t just say “hey, I thought you’d be interested in….” Tell them why you thought they’d be interested – you saw something similar on their blog for example – they won’t always remember every post they’ve done in the past, and you may not have the same ideas about what’s relevant).
• WOULD NOT dismiss all bloggers just because of a few idiots who feel like bitching about receiving news.
• WOULD take bloggers seriously when they contact them for information, verification of facts, interview requests, review materials, etc. – or at least have some clear policies in place about what you’re willing to give to whom (no excuse not to offer verification, but it’s perfectly understandable if you won’t mail out products for review to a brand new blog with no audience).
• WOULD include an unsubscribe option in email pitches (although this is really more of a “if you mass-send emails” thing – an unsubscribe link doesn’t really work in a personal email, which is what bloggers say they want – choose your battles I guess).

Bloggers

• WOULD make sure their blog was well targeted (you can’t complain about people not knowing what you’re interested in if you’re hopping around from topic to topic – if you cover something even once, it’s a reasonable assumption you might be open to talking about something similar down the road).
• WOULD make sure the blog is fully searchable and categories are easy to find – make it easy for people to find out whether you’re interested in a topic or not.
• WOULD have a pitching policy clearly in place on their blog (this is especially true for blogs with large audiences – when you turn yourself into a niche media outlet, you not only take on increased responsibility to your readers, but you have to expect pitches to come with that). If you don’t want to receive pitches, or only pitches on certain topics, say so clearly and publicly, and make it easy to find. If you do that, you have every right to bitch (loudly) when someone doesn’t bother to read it (although be careful about where people are finding you – if you don’t want pitches, don’t post your address publicly – Gina Trapani recently bashed quite a few firms claiming they directly ignored her requests, and it turned out not to be true as she was in a media database with that address – always know where your contact info is, and if you don’t want it out there, use a friggin’ contact form instead).
• WOULD NOT blacklist all PRs or even full firms over the actions of a few idiots (despite how much you hear about them, you’d be hard-pressed to convince me that most PRs are like that – hell, most of us aren’t pitching you to begin with).
• WOULD NOT bitch about people sending unsolicited contacts and then hypocritically publish a mass email list of the same (is that really even legal?).
• WOULD make use of the filters the email gods have given them instead of feeling a need to create public blacklists.
• WOULD understand that they’re far from the only relevant blogger to a firm’s or client’s audience, and therefore it’s not always possible to spend huge amounts of time on every blog that might be interested in a pitch – especially given that most pitches are time-sensitive.
• WOULD understand that by mass-blacklisting PRs, you won’t get advance news that is relevant, you won’thave any chance to break those stories (plenty of other bloggers will be more than happy to beat you to the punch, build their own rep, and potentially swipe your audience in time), and you won’t likely get cooperation when you want a big interview, review products, event access, etc.
• WOULD report true PR spam to someone higher in a firm, so they could better understand how to train their newer staff to avoid those problems in the future. Is it our job as bloggers to do this? No. But if we’re not doing anything to try to help the problem, we don’t have the right to bitch about it as loudly.

Are all of these things ever going to happen? Hell no. The point is that no matter what side you’re on, if you’re complaining about the other side, you’re quite likely doing at least something to contribute to the problem. Always? No. Some spam is just spam.

PRs don’t want to be looked at as spammers (and most of us aren’t). So we need to better educate other PRs, weed out the bad apples ourselves, and more effectively target bloggers – even if that means targeting fewer bloggers (leaving out those without already-existing significant readerships) because of time constraints in getting to know them.

Bloggers often want to be respected as legitimate sources for news and information in their niche. As bloggers we have to know when to choose our battles, and we have to know which PR folks to befriend (might we be interested in using that connection in the future?). We have to understand that the ability to immediately and publicly bitch when we’re pissed off doesn’t give us the right to do so without first thinking an issue through and figuring out if there’s a better approach that would still fit our needs. I’m all for bloggers having the right to bitch as much as they want… I just think we need to think before we do it, and make sure our post is proactive in trying to start discussions rather than solely reactive because we’re pissed off.

So what do you think? Will we ever play nice? In an absolutely ideal world, what do you think either PRs or bloggers (or both!) need to know or do?

The post If PR Pros and Bloggers Played Nice appeared first on NakedPR.

• PR and the ‘Chick Factor’: What Kent State Learned About the Missing Men of Public Relations – from Bill Sledzik at Tough Sledding
• Mistaken Stereotype of PR – from Caitlin Regan of TGC, a student-managed PR agency at California State University, Chico

It was purely coincidence that I happened upon these two posts side by side, both addressing stereotypes people have of PR pros, especially from a student perspective.

The Stereotypes

Here are a few of the stereotypes that were mentioned between the posts, as well as a few I’ve faced personally from people who should know better (feel free to add your own favorites):

• We’re liars.
• All we do is manipulate people.
• We spend all our time schmoozing.
• PR’s for chicks.
• Our job is easy or just one big party.

Caitlin seemed to take particular offense (and who could blame her) with the portrayal of Sex in the City’s character Samantha Jones, whom HBO refers to as “a successful PR exec who knows what she wants- and most of the time, she gets it. She radiates confidence in everything she does, whether it’s landing a star client, getting a table at the trendiest restaurant or bedding the hottest guy in a room.”

Sounds like a typical “day at the office” for me. How about you?

Does Sex in the City go too far with Samantha’s character? I’m honestly asking… I’m not a fan of the show. Yet this is where I’m amused. Call me an optimist, but I’d like to think that most people (or at least a lot of people) are smart enough to know the difference between fact and fiction.

I mean, do you imagine that most doctors act like Hugh Laurie’s character on House? Do you think most in law enforcement act anything like your favorite characters in whatever Law & Order or CSI spin-off you’re into? Maybe you believe in the Boogeyman too.

I’m not saying Caitlin’s got it wrong. I think pop media probably does influence the general view of the Public Relations profession. And I blame us.

Shhh! It’s a Secret!

Caitlin talks in her post about having to defend her PR degree. Do you even feel a twinge of embarrassment when you tell people you work in PR? Do you try to give it another name? Do you just not mention it at all when you can help it?

Personally, I’d rather shout it from the rooftops. “I work in PR, and I’m damned proud of it!!!”

I think that’s the only way we’re ever going to do our part to educate people about PR’s existence, nonetheless the truth behind us and what we do. And apparently, we really need to get on that.

Bill points out the gender divide in PR, especially with Kent State’s PR majors. A recurring theme seems to be that students are going into college having no idea what PR is (which was true in my own case – I pretty much stumbled into the major), or they have a preconceived notion that it’s a “chick thing.”

Hey… the testosterone pool in the PR industry may not be overflowing, but I have to say I’m generally pretty proud of the guys we do have. Even though I don’t always agree with them, I’ll admit that most I’ve come across are pretty competent in the work itself (even the ones I don’t particularly like on a personal level). And quality matters more than quantity, right?

I loved one student’s quote that Bill published, essentially saying that women are better liars and therefore more suited to PR work. Maybe it’s just because I’m the bluntly honest type, but I don’t see that. Do you?

What Can We Do?

Why don’t we have more men in PR? Why don’t students know what PR is before getting into college? Why are we still fighting this stereotype that we’re all a bunch of lying party animals who wouldn’t know real work if it bit us on the ass?

It’s no secret that we do an awful PR job when it comes to the image of PR itself. It’s been discussed seemingly endlessly. I’d like to think things are better now than a few years ago. I find that smaller businesses I work with are usually the most willing to learn about what we do and how it can benefit them, and go into it with the fewest assumptions. At the same time, other groups seem too far gone – their minds probably won’t ever be changed.

So in your opinion, where should we be focusing? Educating future PR pros? Educating our current and potential clients? Working over the louses who still give us a bad name? (I vote for this one.) What can we do? Not on a grand scale even, but perhaps the better question is what can we do right now?

The post PR Pros: A Bunch of Shady Sex-Crazed Skirts appeared first on NakedPR.

So how should you deal with it the next time you come under attack in the social media realm? Should you lash back at the person? Should you pout and whine? Should you ignore it? No. You should take it as an opportunity to start a discussion, evaluate why you’re being criticized, and most importantly do something about it if the complaint has any merit.

Case in Point: PRWeb

I’ve been a harsh critic of PRWeb in the past (still am to a degree). Yet Joe Beaulaurier, PRWeb’s Marketing Manager, sets a perfect example of how to productively deal with virtual critcism.

My first interaction with Joe was on a webmaster forum that I frequent and now help moderate (where I spend a lot of time networking with the online entrepreneur side of my client base). While I can’t remember exactly what was said that got Joe’s attention, I’m sure it was at least a little bit harsh. Quite frankly, I’d gotten sick and tired of Internet marketers and others pushing PRWeb as some God-given gift to the PR world – when in fact they were simply pandering to the link-loving, keyword-stuffing, spam-a-holic crowd, contributing to the growing heap of “garbage” press releases littering the Web. (While I’m a bit “tamer” on the PRWeb front these days, that gives you an idea of the attitude at the time.)

One of my specific issues with PRweb in the past (which they’ve since resolved) was that it was a pain in the ass to go over their package details when clients were interested in using them, because those details weren’t available if you weren’t already registered with the site (and most new clients weren’t). Joe addressed that on the forums, and proceeded to leave me a voicemail to try to connect and chat about some of my issues. I never did return that call (sorry Joe). When I finally found time, I decided instead to address some of my issues with PRWeb here on this blog instead – I think that may have actually been the first of the now-typical rant posts here.

Despite that choice (because my concern was more about helping webmasters – then the primary readers of this blog – and not PRWeb), I have to admit I was impressed that anyone with the company even took notice of the comments, nonetheless responded. I was even happier to see a company take criticisms constructively and actually make changes in the long run (such as making their package information more readily available).

Later on, in that same forum, someone pointed out a technical issue with PRweb – URLs automatically become live links (at least with certain packages), and if there was a comma following the URL, it was included in the live link (meaning dead links). It was affecting more than a few old releases up on the site. Remembering how well Joe had addressed past issues in that community, I brought it to his attention directly. Within a few days, the problem was fixed, and all links were functioning properly again – and he addressed the issue directly on the forum as well as here. Again, I was impressed. A company rep actually taking complaints seriously? Things actually getting fixed, and quickly? Wow, right? People… this is how you deal with criticism. And by dealing with it professionally the first time, you’re able to potentially alter the “tone” of future comments from the same critics.

When to Address Online Criticism

I talked to Joe about his own choices in addressing or ignoring Web-based slams against PRWeb, and how he manages to keep his cool in the process. I think it’s far better to learn from a good example than to simply have a PR rep rattle off a list of tactics for online crisis management. First, I wanted to know why he bothered to respond to me. Here’s what Joe had to say:

“Your criticisms of PRWeb, albeit colorfully harsh, were not founded on misinformation or falsehoods. You presented knowledgeable expert positions founded on many years of walking the walk and your large audience included PRWeb customers and prospects. You were definitely a worthwhile person to develop a line of communication with.”

And that’s where Joe makes a distinction between what he considers worth a response, and what he doesn’t – whether responding (especially publicly) will actually help someone (in my case, their customers – also my clients, who cared about what I had to say).

So what kinds of motivations are there behind online criticisms, and when is it worth your time to respond publicly?

“Sometimes criticism is merely for the sake of being snarky to stir up controversy/conversation to promote blog readership or in the hope something free will be tossed out to quell the complainer. I’ll often pass on those. Sometimes it is based on misinformation or falsehoods. I will respond to these but only if it’s in a visible location and future visitors could make incorrect decisions based on the misinformation or falsehoods unless some clarification is made. And other times it comes from the fact that we screwed up and need to take responsibility for it.”

Should You Respond Publicly or Privately?

Joe shared some additional thoughts on responding to information posted about your company on the Web, more specifically his thoughts on what should be responded to publicly, and what warrants a private response:

“There’s also the matter of choosing whether to engage within the public-facing comments of a blog or contacting ‘offline.’ Sometimes it helps the blogger or site owner to save face if there’s incorrect information in something they’ve posted. I recently encountered a guest blogger scenario and the guest blogger was introduced as an employee of PRWeb. Even though I didn’t recognize the name (we’re a relatively small company) I scrambled to be sure we hadn’t hired someone recently before contacting the site owners offline. They responded quickly recognizing there was a miscommunication. No harm, no foul and I sent them a coupon for a free release as thanks.”

In this case, the response wasn’t directly related to negative information about PRWeb being published, but simply incorrect information. However, I think he has a really good point when it comes to letting the blogger save face. Even if the misinformation is of a more serious nature, it’s generally not a good idea to bash the blogger for it publicly. What you do then is alienate them (something you should avoid, especially if they have any influence with your target market or audience). Many bloggers would be more than happy to retract incorrect information or post an update if you’ve fixed a problem if you simply ask them to privately. Many would also be grateful to even know that you’re monitoring their blog to begin with.

Monitoring Online Feedback

So how can you keep on top of what’s being said about you or your company online anyway? Joe brings up a good point, in that finding these discussions is sometimes where companies struggle:

“I think the challenge for most companies is a lack of awareness that these online conversations are even occurring or having the means to monitor. I’m an information junky. I’ve set up many dashboards which I can quickly scan that show me the conversations around PRWeb and others in my space. I wouldn’t assume their silence is a deliberate approach to the situation.”

Personally, there are a few ways I like to keep tabs on what’s being said about me:

• I set up alerts through Google or Yahoo.
• I run regular blog searches in Google and check sites like Technorati to see who’s been linking to me recently.
• I do more thorough backlink checks to see who’s linking to my sites, what particular pages, and why.
• I constantly monitor the stats for all of my blogs and sites, seeing what sources are suddenly sending traffic (and again checking to see why).
• If there are specific sites I feel a need to monitor, I run searches on them periodically.

The system I use isn’t perfect, but I do pick up the bulk of blog posts, comments, tweets, forum posts, etc. that mention me or one of my sites this way.

Don’t Take it Personally

It’s no secret that when I feel strongly enough about something to rant about it here, it’s probably going to be relatively harsh. While once in a while I come across someone like Joe who actually tries to turn the criticism into a constructive conversation, others don’t. What has always baffled me is the fact that those who respond by taking it personally are usually the ones who come under even more fire later, but they choose to do it anyway.

They might leave a nasty comment on the blog post (which usually does precious little more than amuse me and egg me on). They might delete your critical comment from their own blog. They might ban you from their blog. They might remove you from their social network. They might bitch about you on Twitter. That rarely helps.

Sure, it’s hard not to take things personally if the comments are directly about you. But when they’re directed at your company, product, etc., you have to be able to detach yourself a little bit more, and as Joe puts it “put your ego in your pocket and realize that, yes, your company, a member of your staff or a customer service policy may suck.” When you’re open to the possibility that you may actually be in the wrong, you can proceed productively while minimizing further damage.

Joe very nicely sums up the simple plan you should try to follow the next time your company comes under some virtual fire: “Find out what motivated the criticism, how it can be resolved and how it is not going to happen again.”

So what do you think? What’s the best way to deal with online criticism? What if it’s particularly harsh? What can you do to avoid taking things too personally? Is there ever a time when you should take things more personally? Do you have any stories to share of really good, or really bad, examples of companies or individuals effectively handling blog-based or similar attacks?

The post Customer Complaints and Virtual Bitch Slaps: Dealing With Web-Based Criticism appeared first on NakedPR.

I want no part of it. I get especially annoyed with the “courting” I see from some of these groups, trying to align themselves with other bloggers that might benefit them in some way – whether it’s because that blogger runs some kind of ranking system, might interview them, is a good blog to get a nice mention on if you become buddies, etc. Quite frankly, it’s conniving, and we’re not all blinded by it. At least a handful of blogs I used to consider decent went off my radar in the last year due to their “recruitment” into these kinds of groups.

How susceptible are you to these blog cliques? If they suddenly start praising you in their little network, will you feel obligated to rush over and thank them or do them “favors?” If another blogger came to you before posting something controversial, and asked if you’d promise to back them up publicly, would you agree to?

Not me. If you think I’m worth covering, cover me. If not, don’t. If you want to rant about me, do it to your heart’s content. You won’t likely get a reaction… at least not on your blog. At this point, I’d tend to respond on my own, where I control my message (I’ve had enough comments edited or deleted elsewhere to know better). Don’t expect thanks. Don’t think it makes us “friends.” Don’t think saying something nice about me means I’m going to plug you, or that it’s going to keep me from ripping into you if you royally screw up. I don’t owe you favors. Why some bloggers feel like they do absolutely baffles me.

Don’t whore yourself out to the PR blog party crowd. Speak for yourself if you want respect. If your words don’t hold their own, you’re better off finding out the hard way than feeling like your opinion matters with the pseudo-support you’ll get from your new pals. And now you know…. people really do notice when you’ve sold out.

The post Why I Won’t Join Your PR Blog Party appeared first on NakedPR.

“Isn’t that the beauty of this thing called social media/Web 2.0? We’re defining the “rules” as we go along? More conservatives types disagree with Debbie’s email but others see it as a sensible approach? In Scoble’s book, this marketing issue is touched upon – which is what this is…even though blogs, etc., are not supposed to be selling avenues, so far, at least.”

The last part of that comment – “blogs, etc., are not supposed to be selling avenues” – is baffling to me, because it shows that there is still a huge issue in the PR industry when it comes to blogging. I’d say we need to forget about talking “blog ethics” for a little while, and instead start teaching PR professionals what blogging is all about to begin with.

We’re a very self-centered bunch sometimes. We see things through our little “PR goggles” which blind us to all other aspects of business, and often the Web, in any way that isn’t directly involved with PR.

Maybe I just have a unique perspective because not only am I in PR, but I also run an online business, have a client base predominantly made up of online entrepreneurs, and I’m heavily involved in Web publishing and development in my own right. Maybe I see things differently, because I’m more exposed to all sides when it comes to PR on the Web. Or am I maybe just naive in thinking that it’s “OK” to use tools on the Web for more than PR?

Blogs aren’t a “PR tool”. Let’s get that cleared up first. They’re a “communication tool.” Do blogs have PR value? Of course they do. If they didn’t, we’d all look like a bunch of idiots for fighting over how they should or shouldn’t be promoted, now wouldn’t we?

Blogging for PR is just one very small segment of blogging as a whole. But there are a lot of other reasons people blog. The two biggest reasons that I think are most often overlooked by PR professionals are:

1. Blogging as a business model in its own right.
2. Blogging as a marketing tool.

So in response to Susan… Yes, blogs are “supposed” to be selling avenues. I’d even argue that the marketing community beat us to the punch on using blogs. They’re used quite effectively to sell all kinds of products and services. Hell, I’ve seen several top PR blogs using the blog as a tool for selling the blogger’s books or services. Blogs are effective for marketing. Let’s not ignore that. The fact that it may not be “approved” by the PR masses really means squat.

I was also forwarded a link recently by Judy Gombita, highlighting a quote on the Media Guerrilla Blog regarding the value of links. The quote is in a comment left by John Harper:

“…it’s more important than ever to treat links as the legitimate currency they are – not for sale (unless your word is for sale), but as personal recommendations and acknowledgements.”

People are entitled to their opinions. But again, what this demonstrates is the narrow-mindedness and naivety in the PR industry when it comes to online business and PR. Links aren’t a “legitimate currency.” They’re a business model… thanks to good old Google. A lot of people (myself included) make a lot of money selling links on blogs. That’s not going to stop because someone in PR thinks it should. Frankly, I hope it never does, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with selling links.

Now, if you disguised paid for links as personal recommendations, I could see a major problem with that. (And in my own defense, I always distinguish between my sponsored and recommended links as clearly as possible… and for the record, there are currently no sponsored links on this blog.)

But trying to pretend that blogs are all about good will and information or some other nonsense is pretty ridiculous. I’d say it’s time to get with the times. Not a single blogger can say they place any kind of respectable value in every single link on their blog (unless they disable comment links for poster names, comment links in the comments, don’t link to references and news sources that they don’t value enough to share their supposed “currency” with, etc.). I doubt you could find a single blogger treating links as valuable currency, and I doubt you ever will… and you shouldn’t. It’s just not how things work on the Web. Remember, we’re forced to work in reality, and not some PR ideal here.

You can’t operate in online PR if you don’t understand the dynamics of the environment you’re working in. Marketing and PR operate more closely than ever on the Web, and frankly, I get really sick of the fact that half the time it’s the Internet marketers beating us at our own game, while we struggle to even understand what the hell our role is anymore.

For example… the bulk of SEO work is being done by Internet marketers. SEO is actually a PR function… it’s all about gaining exposure in a medium… in this case search engines (which then leads to other coverage, natural linking, etc.). Yet, I know very few PR folks who even understand the fundamentals of SEO, nonetheless accept that it’s a part of their job. All half of us seem to know is what the social media gurus tell us, and without the practical experience to really back much up.

Sorry for the mish-mashed post today. I just can’t help but get a bit worked up after reading half of the crap I see posted online about online PR, blogging and PR, and social media. Maybe I should go back to reading the IM blogs more often… they may be the “gamers” of the social media systems, but at least they stay on top of the latest technologies in ways that put us to shame. And frankly… they piss me off a whole lot less.

The post Why Do PR Professionals Still Not Understand Blogging? appeared first on NakedPR.

The uproar is shocking, and rather disturbing (and this is coming from a huge transparency advocate), because A) it shows how few PR people actually know a damn thing about blogging and B) how many PR pros, including the “big guys” are disgustingly hypocritical. I’ve been disappointed in the industry in the past (with their inability to make people aware of what we do, with their recent addiction to bullshit PR buzzwords, and habit of trying to reinvent anything they’re too stupid to know how to use well in the first place, just for starters), but this one takes the cake.

My issue stems from David Murray’s post about the Weil issue on his blog, Shades of Gray. Everyone’s entitled to their opinions (lord knows I have mine), but I have little patience for hypocrisy.

First, let’s discuss the basic issues that have PR people pissed off:

1. She asked people she knew for comments on a client’s blog.
2. She included the line “If you’re inspired or provoked, leave a comment on any entry. No need to say that you know me, of course.”

Murray made the decision to post Weil’s email on his blog, leading to PR pros big and small jumping on the bandwagon (as they often do) with a viral storm of criticism and Chicken Little-esque spur of comments about the falling ethical standards of the PR industry, at least when it comes to blogging.

Let’s just make my thoughts on Weil’s moral obligations and decisions clear:

1. Do I think she made a smart decision in posting the line about not needing to mention that you know her? No. Of course not.
2. Do I consider that line unethical? No. But it was stupid, and I’m sure she regrets it at least a little bit, or at least wouldn’t make the same mistake again.
3. Do we all make stupid mistakes? You betcha. And unfortunately most of us are making a LOT of mistakes regarding blogging for PR right now.
4. Do I consider asking people to comment on a blog if they feel motivated by the posts to be unethical? No. And if the majority of PR people knew a damn thing about running a promotional blog (or gaining an audience for any blog outside of their personal or professional circle for that matter), they probably wouldn’t either. But they don’t; mystery solved.

OK. Now let’s talk about hypocrisy and why Murray’s post did more to piss me off than Weil’s email:

Here’s exactly what I had to say about it on Murray’s blog: “As for you reposting a colleague’s email… that’s the larger ethical violation in my opinion, not even because you did it, but because you did it with some kind of air of moral superiority while sinking to a debatably lower level in the same breath.”

The “not even because you did it” part is the key. I have no problem with him posting the email if it’s something he felt should be made public, and the email didn’t contain a confidentiality clause (I don’t know if it did). You run that risk with any email you send. That’s life. Get used to it.

My problem is the hypocrisy of pretending for one second that he’s more ethical than Weil, given the way he chose to handle the situation. His “ethically pure journalistic self”? OK. That literally made me laugh. But to act self-righteous throughout the entire post, while violating a trust and the same industry ethics guidelines that she did, is beyond unethical. Now, don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against him personally… just the way he handled this particular post.

It’s not just this blog… the responses are often almost as disturbing from people who couldn’t even bother to read the original email before criticizing. The part they conveniently ignore? “If you’re inspired or provoked, leave a comment on any entry.”

There’s nothing wrong with essentially inviting people to check out a post, and suggesting they leave a comment if they feel so inclined, which is all Weil did there. There’s nothing in the world you can say that would justify a claim that it’s a violation of ethics to refer a blog to someone. That’s all this was. If there’s an ethical violation based on her other bit, you’re free to feel that way, and can certainly justify it… just don’t throw stones when your comments make you just as deserving.

And what’s the ethical violation anyway? Well, Robert Holland over at MyRagan cited the PRSA’s Code of Ethics: “Public relations professionals should work constantly to strengthen the public’s trust in the profession.”

How is Murray strengthening the public’s trust in the profession when he essentially just told all of his colleagues that he can’t be trusted with so much as an email that he might disagree with? How much trust is he building with clients who might now have to wonder whether private communications might be made public if they criticize his work or opinions, or cancel their contracts (and I’m not saying for a second that he would do that; only that his actions certainly don’t promote public trust).

Frankly, I doubt that there’s a single PR practitioner that can say they’ve never crossed a line, whether it be publicly or in private correspondence (myself included). The moral of the story… say what you want; do what you want. Just make sure you’re not acting like a hypocrite in the process.

The post Blog Ethics and Why I’m Ashamed of the PR Bigwigs appeared first on NakedPR.